Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Sheesh, a lot of those don't even have anything to do with evolution. I only skimmed it but the one about only 5000 years of recorded history is completely irrelevant to evolution, except that it shows that humans didn't start recording their history until about 5000 years ago.

For the utterly vast majority of these, there is simply no link whatsoever to any possible argument against evolution in any way, shape, or form. In this regard, the worst was:

43. ATP

Really, that's an argument? Not last time I checked. ATP stands for Adenosine Triphosphate, a molecule which uderlies the bulk of the energy carrier system of all of biological life, and is one of the most ubiquitous entities in cellular life. However, try as I might, I cannot see how this:

Constitutes an Argument against evolution.

A great deal of others simply demonstrated ignorance if not being total non sequiturs. The argument from "the second law of thermodynamics" can be refuted by knowing three very simple equation, S=h/T, ∆S(universe)=∆Ssystem+∆S(surrounding), and -∆G=-H+T∆S. Dembski's argument can be refuted by anyone who knows the Shannon equations, the ones that simply list complex structures that the authors express personal incredulity over, like B-cells, are obviously nonsense. The word "C14" itself does not constitute an argument, some of the claims, such as c-decay, are simply lies, and the rest are largely incoherent.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.